2 ms·
How is it different? Both actions amount to the same thing don't they - protect and help the poor to make us all better off. The reasons may be different - but
by confluence 14y ago
How is it different? Both actions amount to the same thing don't they - protect and help the poor to make us all better off. The reasons may be different - but the outcome is the same, isn't it? If both theories produce equivalent actions, then the theories are equivalent, no?
- andyjohnson0 14y agoMaking judgments about theories or actions only by comparing the outcomes is called Consequentialism [1]. I'm not saying it is always wrong, but it is just one of a range of frameworks that can be applied. Applying consequentialism to ethical judgments about people is often problematic. There are various criticisms listed in [1], but they are kind of theoretical. Let me give a practical example instead. If we allow (as you say) that "protect and help the poor to make us all better off" is the best way to form a judgement about this issue because it turns out that it actually does make us all better off, then what do you do if it emerges that protecting some sub-group of the poor (say, poor people in South America) actually makes us worse off? Are they out of luck, or do you revise your judgement even though, in your terms, it was correct? Basically, this limited world-view can instrumentalise people and is vulnerable to dangerous unforeseen consequences that lead to real human suffering. And I'm done. Unit tests to write. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism